Mr. HARPER moved the order of the day on the bill to amend the several
acts for laying a duty on spirits distilled within the United States,
and on stills; which motion being agreed to, the House resolved itself
into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. KITTERA in the chair.
The bill having been read,
Mr. MACON said, that the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, on
the proposition for allowing distillers to take licenses for a week,
having been referred to that committee, if it were taken up at all, this
was the proper time. He should, therefore, propose an additional section
to the bill, to embrace this objection.
Mr. M. accordingly presented a section to allow of weekly licenses.
This motion produced a considerable debate. It was opposed by Messrs.
SEWALL, GRISWOLD, GALLATIN, GORDON, and BROOKS, on the ground that the
duty now paid upon spirits distilled from fruit (which description of
distillers the regulation was avowedly intended to accommodate) was not
equal to that paid by distillers of grain, as the duty on spirits
distilled from fruit was not more than two and a half cents per gallon,
whilst that on spirits distilled from grain paid seven cents; and if the
amendments were agreed to, this inequality would be increased--for
persons who took a license for a week, by preparing their materials
beforehand, and working night and day, would finish their business
within that time, which otherwise would have required a fortnight; by
which means the duty would be reduced from six cents per gallon, on the
capacity of their stills, to four; that it would increase the temptation
to fraud, as that temptation was strong, or the contrary, in proportion
to the length of time for which a license was taken; as a person taking
a license for a fortnight, by working his still one day past the time
specified in his license would gain half a cent a gallon on the capacity
of his still, whilst he who took out a license for six months would only
gain half that sum. If licenses for a week were allowed, the temptation
would therefore be increased; that such a regulation would greatly
augment the duties of excise officers, without rendering any material
advantages to individuals--since, if the owner of a still of fifty
gallons took out a license for a fortnight, when a week might have
served, he would only pay a dollar more than he would have paid for a
week; that when this scale of duties was made, reference was had to the
situation of persons who would be obliged to take out a license for a
fortnight, though they might not have fruit to employ a still more than
a few days, and a rate proportionably low adopted; that the same reasons
which were urged for allowing licenses for a week might be urged for
allowing one for two days; that, though there might be some
inconveniences experienced by the distillers of fruit, (as it was not
doubted there might be in other parts of the law,) yet, as it was only
just got into operation, it would not be right to enter into the
proposed regulation, but defer it to the period when it would most
probably be necessary to go into a review of the whole law.
The motion was supported by Messrs. MACON, HARRISON, HARPER, J. PARKER,
NICHOLAS, VENABLE, R. WILLIAMS, NEW, DENNIS, T. CLAIBORNE, and CLAY. It
was asserted that the law as it now stood excluded four out of five of
the owners of orchards, in the Southern States, from distilling their
early fruit at all; that their peaches ripened hastily, and as hastily
rotted, if not made use of. Persons who had only fruit to employ their
stills for three or four days, sooner than take a license for a
fortnight, suffered their fruit to rot; and to allow licenses for a week
would produce a considerable augmentation of the revenue, since those
persons only would take such a license, who, if that privilege were not
allowed, would not take out a license at all, or such as had occasion to
distil a few days longer after their two weeks' license was expired. It
was unjust to require a man, who had only a small orchard, and occasion
to use a still but a few days, to pay a much higher duty upon his brandy
than his more opulent neighbor. It was not so inconsiderable an object
as gentlemen supposed, since it had not reference to one license
only--farmers in the Southern States having occasion to take out
separate licenses for their early, their middle, and their latter
fruits; and this regulation would not open a door to fraud, as was
supposed. It was an undeserved imputation upon the characters of persons
concerned in this business, to suppose they could be tempted to defraud
the revenue for the sake of half a cent per gallon upon what they could
distil in a day. The penalties consequent upon fraud, if the virtue of
the persons concerned could not be relied upon, were sufficient to guard
against them; and, if they were not, it could not be expected, as some
gentlemen seemed to suppose, that the excise officers should overlook
the conduct of every distiller. If they were to be so inspected and
scourged, an attempt to defraud the revenue could scarcely be blamed;
and, except it were the intention of gentlemen to crush this domestic
manufacture, no reasonable objection could be urged against the
proposition. The objections which had been urged proved the ignorance of
gentlemen in respect to this branch of business; for though the excise
officers would have some trouble in issuing licenses, it was believed
they would be well satisfied to encounter it, since their profits were
in proportion to the quantity of spirits distilled; and though this law
had been but a short time in being, the last season, having been a
scarce fruit season, had given a good opportunity of trying it. As the
application for this amendment was seconded by the whole of the Southern
country, it was entitled to respect, and ought not to be branded with
being a fraudulent design upon the revenue.
In the course of the debate, Mr. GALLATIN called upon gentlemen
acquainted with the subject, to say what was the quantity of spirits
which could be distilled from peaches in a week by a still of the
capacity of thirty, forty or fifty gallons, with a view to show that
this species of spirits paid less at present than spirits distilled from
grain.
Mr. CLAY answered this inquiry, by saying, that a still of fifty gallons
would distil from five to seven gallons of brandy a day. If the weather
was wet, and the peaches rotted quickly, not more than five; but when
the weather was dry, and the peaches sound, seven gallons might be
produced.
The question on the amendment was at length put and carried--45 to 37.
Mr. DENNIS said, he wished to try another principle in this bill. The
law at present required an annual entry of stills, whether they were
used or not, which occasioned persons frequently to ride twenty or
thirty miles to make the entry, when they had no intention to make use
of their still; and not unfrequently, from not meeting with the officers
at home, this journey was taken two or three times over. Indeed, he
believed, more penalties had been incurred on account of this regulation
than any other, and he looked upon it as a useless regulation. When a
still was once entered, he thought it was sufficient, and no future
entry ought to be required, except when a still was about to be made use
of, or when it was transferred into other hands. Mr. D. proposed a
section to this effect; but after some objections to the introduction of
so important a provision into this bill, (which before it could be
decided upon would require considerable discussion,) by Messrs. HARTLEY,
GALLATIN, and HARPER, he agreed to withdraw it for the present.
It having been agreed to fill the blank of the sum per gallon to be paid
on the capacity of a still, when a license was taken for a week, with
_four cents_, the committee rose; the House took up the amendments,
agreed to them, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading to-morrow.
FRIDAY, January 5.
_Count de Grasse._
Mr. LIVINGSTON called for the order of the day on the bill for granting
an annuity to the daughters of the late Count de Grasse; which being
agreed to, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the subject, Mr. DENT in the chair; and, after a number of desultory
observations, the blanks were filled up, viz: the time for which the
annuities should continue was fixed at five years, and the sum per annum
to be allowed at $500 each. The first question was determined by a
considerable majority, there being 57 votes in favor of it; the latter
was carried--46 to 38.
The committee then rose and reported the amendments. They were all
agreed to without a division, except the sum to be allowed per annum.
When that question was put,
Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped it would not be agreed to. When the subject was
before under discussion, the question on $500 and $400 had been
negatived. $500 a year for the four daughters for five years, he said,
would be $10,000. He thought this a very serious sum. He again adverted
to the situation of many of our own citizens, and called for the yeas
and nays upon the question.
Mr. HARPER asked whether, if, when the Count de Grasse was solicited to
remain with the fleet under his command in the Chesapeake, at his own
risk and responsibility, he had asked as a condition that on some future
day $10,000 should be granted to his daughters, would it not have been
complied with, if it had been ten times that sum? And ought his
descendants to be more hardly dealt with because their father had the
generosity and magnanimity not to make the demand? He trusted not.[28]
After some observations in favor of concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in their vote, by Messrs. THATCHER, BROOKS, LIVINGSTON, and
GORDON; and against it by Messrs. VARNUM, MCDOWELL, and MACON--the
former of whom said that the clergy, in his part of the country, had not
more than three hundred and thirty dollars a year; and the latter
gentleman produced three cases of our own citizens who had lost their
lives in the service of the United States, whose families had been much
more hardly dealt with, viz: the family of a Lieutenant Colonel, who had
four hundred and fifty dollars a year granted them; that of a Major,
three hundred dollars a year; and that of the Marshal of Georgia, whose
family had a grant of two thousand dollars. The yeas and nays were
taken--40 to 43.
The question for allowing five hundred dollars a year being negatived,
four hundred was proposed and carried--46 to 34.
The question being on the bill being engrossed for a third reading, Mr.
BLOUNT called for the yeas and nays upon it. It was carried--55 to 25.
MONDAY, January 15.
LEMUEL BENTON, from the State of South Carolina, appeared, and took his
seat.
_Expenditure for Naval Service._
Mr. LIVINGSTON called up for consideration and decision the resolution
which he had laid upon the table a few days ago, for the appointment of
a committee of inquiry into the expenditure of money which had been
appropriated for the naval service.